CLASSICAL THEISM AND THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

This paper provides a critical analysis of the ontological argument for the existence of God, one of the most fascinating and contentious proofs in the history of philosophy and theology. The analysis begins by establishing the argument's contemporary relevance, citing the renewed debate sparked by figures such as Charles Hartshorne and J.N. Findlay. The core of the paper is dedicated to an exposition of Anselm of Canterbury's classical formulation, which defines God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" and posits existence as a necessary predicate of such a perfect being. The paper contrasts the ontological argument's claim of logical necessity with the cosmological argument's reliance on factual necessity. Subsequently, a rigorous critique is presented, challenging the argument on several fronts. These include the problematic application of "logical necessity" outside a defined context, the ambiguity and context-dependency of the concept of a "Perfect Being," and the internal contradictions arising from different historical versions of perfection (Platonic, Neo-Platonic, and limitless potentiality). The paper also examines Charles Hartshorne's neoclassical revision, which introduces the concept of a dipolar, changing God. Ultimately, the paper concludes that while the ontological argument fails as a formal proof, it remains a profound expression of faith, hope, and the human longing for ultimate security and meaning.